Misogynist Hot Sauce

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

I was just thinking Cassy Fiano‘s critique of the bitter feminists, who are bitching away cantankerously — this time about Taco Bell’s virtual bikini model campaign — was deserving of, ahem, some more exposure.

The feminists are complaining about Taco Bell’s new ad campaign, called “Direct Daniella”, in which they’ve partnered up with Sports Illustrated to give some lucky customer the chance to be the photographer in a Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit Edition photo shoot.

They are, of course, offended and simply OUTRAGED!:

One of our readers sent us an email recently, rightfully confused as to why Taco Bell’s hot sauce packets are now printed with a website that leads you to perhaps the creepiest ad campaign ever. “Direct Daniella” has the user follow around a swimsuit model, taking pictures of her in a weird stalkerish webcam way.

Reader Karlen wrote, “What this has to do with lousy ‘Mexican’ fast food is beyond me.” Indeed. So I did a little digging. Turns out, Taco Bell has joined up with Sports Illustrated to promote the magazine’s swimsuit issue.

Exotic, huh? It’s like a big ole chalupa of sexism and grossness wrapped in some fetishization of women of color. De-licious.

See, folks, not only is this campaign steeped in sexism, but there’s also some racism, fetishization, and all around creepiness.

Because Taco Bell is letting a regular Joe photograph a supermodel rather than a “professional”.

Last time I checked, wasn’t the entire point of modeling to, uh, have your picture taken? Am I missing something? I’m female, and I’m pretty unoffended by this.

Well I’m not female, I’m a straight male and I happen to like looking at beautiful women in bikinis. Anybody got a problem with that…well…it just makes me curious. It is the Peeve That Has No Name — so many people willing to say there’s something wrong with men ogling women, so few people willing to say exactly why.

Commenter BelliButton, the ninth out of (as of this writing) 86, makes a decent attempt:

First time posting. Still a little nervous, what with being a Baby Feminist and all.

I can see where it -could- be harmless. I like my boy-eye-candy at times. The problem is that so often it doesn’t stop there. Some men (and I suppose this could be a trap for some lesbians too) become so wrapped up in the package that they impress these ideals on others, which most people can never fufill. It’s a lose-lose for everyone, since unrealistic requirements will lead to frustration on both ends and no one ends up happy. That’s why expectations for the physical exclusively tend to suck so much in the long run.

As a fantasy, harmless. As an ideal? Painful for both sides.

I remember Rush Limbaugh was vilified for pointing out “Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have access to the mainstream of society.” Seems to me we have some evidence here that he was absolutely right from the very beginning. How can this be taken any other way? BelliButton, a baby feminist, “like[s] [her] boy-eye-candy.” The problem being that “so often it doesn’t stop there.” Okay…so we have guilt-by-association on my side of the fence — she thinks she’s made an argument for somehow obstructing the view of good-lookin’ women in bathing suits, from those so inclined to view — but not a single word about how her boy-eye-candy might end up in the “lose-lose for everyone”…and don’t bother waiting for one.

And really, is there any need to mention that side of it? When’s the last time you heard a man belly-aching away about how Daniel-Day Lewis is raising the bar too high? How Fabio instills fantasies in women that are impossible for any real man to fulfill? That he’s worried his wife is thinking about James Van der Beek during moments of carnal bliss? That it’s impossible to ever, ever, no matter what, ever get my midsection as flat as Brad Pitt’s (which, they tell me, is true, and I haven’t bothered to find out for sure)? No man, not even the most pussy-whipped male, is going to be grousing away about this stuff. That’s because there is no “Masculist” movement. Rush is right. This brand of feminism is all about altering the economics of the meat market. It’s about giving you options when you’re a female and you don’t look that good. And it’s about doing that — not by eradicating outdated cultural taboos — but by imposing some brand new ones.

The longer I live, the more convinced I am that my most fundamental and profound individual liberties are inextricably linked to my freedom to look at good-looking women in bathing suits. Whenever & wherever I can do that without someone waggling a gnarled bony finger in my face, or cluck-clucking at me, filling my eardrums with tired cliches in a hostile nasally-rich voice that makes them bleed, I’m probably free to do whatever else I want to do that really matters. Maybe I can make a phone call to Osama bin Laden without the feds listening in, and maybe I can’t — that seems to be nothing more than a red herring. But if I can ogle some babes, I’m probably free, and if I can’t, I’m probably not. It is a far superior litmus test for real freedom. I know that sounds silly, but experience has shown it to be true.

IT IS NOT SEXIST FOR MEN TO ENJOY LOOKING AT BEAUTIFUL WOMEN. It is nature.

Dude, you know very well this is as choir-ey a place to do that preaching as you can ever find. Might as well tell democrats to appeal to emotions instead of issues. Or…try to sell Hillary on the benefits of being nasty, mean and SCOLDING AND TALKING DOWN TO PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. Or…Michael Moore on the benefits of a hot dog diet. Or…sheez…I could make this into a post of its own.

Nope, if they outlaw lookin’ at gorgeous babes in bathing suits, only outlaws will be looking at gorgeous babes in bathing suits. And that’ll be me.

I like to think of testosterone as Homer Simpson thinks of alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all life’s little problems.

If thought of this way, we can excuse the overindulgences (women are slightly degraded), and remember its positive attributes: building tall buildings, creating art and wealth, football prowess, fighting for freedom, etc.

Notice these are all the things that feminists (call them teste-totalers) proclaim they want to eradicate.

Like any abused substance, moderation is key. It can be used for good or for evil, but that does not mean it should be damned altogether.

Marriage (or any monogamous relationship) and children can help harness the power toward good.

Well, I differ on the causing-all-problems thing because I see a lot of problems caused by efforts to eradicate masculinity, not by the masculinity itself.

Maybe this should be a post of its own…

I think of it more like a gun. A tool of immense, deadly power, inspiring unease in people who do not have it…constructed and acquired in the hope that it is never used, except in practice. Just as good or evil as the human intent that wields it. And, by taking it away, we fool ourselves into thinking we’re protecting people from harm, when in reality we’re just making it easier to do the harm.

Except all that stuff you point out…building skyscrapers and such…guns don’t do that. So my analogy breaks down.

I’m a little bit of an odd bird on the subject of masculinity and testosterone. I think of the classic “nerd” as a close cousin to the hormone-drenched jock known for dumping him in the garbage can or shutting him up in a locker. They both personify masculinity…to me…both of them. We think of them as opposed to each other because one victimizes, and one’s a victim. But they share two kinships together. First, they’re both participating in a common hazing ritual that makes boys into men. They are compatriots this way.

The second kinship is that they are both opposed by selfish, immature women and insecure men, who are accustomed to having every little scintilla of life arranged exactly the way they want it. These schoolmarms manipulate the life they live as well as all the life they see, bringing harm to themselves and others with their control-freakishness. They do this by seeing themselves as oppressed by the jock AND the nerd, prematurely. By envisioning an antagonistic relationship where there isn’t one. Feminists have a quick-and-ready explanation for their timeless assault on the jock — he might rape them someday.

Here’s a riddle of life, unsolvable: Feminists can’t explain why they are so hostile to the nerd. They react to him like Dracula to the cross. They hate him more than they hate the jock, many of them. Why? Part of it has to do with feminism parading around under false pretenses: It’s supposed to be about “equal status” for women, giving them more rights…rights to make their own careers…to end the careers of others. But a more central pillar to the movement, as stated above, is to alter the dynamics of the dating “market.” That explains the nerd’s status as sort of a reverse-Holy-Grail. He is what they are trying to avoid.

But if you browse from one flog to another flog, you’ll find the feminists treat the nerd even more deplorably than that. It’s as if he’s more a danger to them than the jock ever will be. The easy, breezy cohabitation between feminists and the socialists who are so opposed to human achievement, may explain why the feminists are never more threatend by the nerd than in the moments in which he builds something. There is feminist hatred for the nerd not so much for what he is, but for what he does.

Like I said, probably better placed in a post of its own. Not so much psychoanalysis required for the outraged, hateful disgusted vitriol flung at men looking at ladies in bathing suits. That one practically makes fun of itself. Truthfully, I feel a little silly even noticing it for how ridiculous it is. And I get the impression the feminists themselves, basking in the glow of their hatred for men who appreciate nice-looking women, would nevertheless just as soon have the subject change any minute.